James_H
And I like to roam the land
- Joined
- May 18, 2002
- Messages
- 7,629
Courtroom Antics & Trial Oddities
- Thread starter Bilderberger
- Start date
OneWingedBird
Beloved of Ra
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2003
- Messages
- 15,431
Funny, but i liked the robber disguised as a tree better 
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Another judge stands up for common sense:
Judge condemns teenager's sweet wrapper prosecution
A judge has condemned a "grotesque" waste of taxpayers' money spent on prosecuting teenager Larissa Wilkinson for allowing her 18 month-old niece to drop a sweet wrapper.
By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent
Published: 2:06PM BST 19 Jun 2009
Miss Wilkinson, 19, was charged with depositing controlled waste after toddler Lila Henderson dropped a mint wrapper out of her car window as she was driving in Huddersfield, West Yorks.
After three appearances at a magistrates' court, and one at a crown court, Judge Roger Scott stepped in to prevent the case going before a jury at an estimated cost of £10,000.
The judge said: "It's the most inappropriate set of proceedings I've personally ever, ever seen and it's a fantastic waste of community charge payers' money.
"This was a grotesque misuse of the powers of the authorities to proceed on indictment for dropping a sweet wrapper."
Miss Wilkinson, an art student, was prosecuted by Kirklees Council in a case which has taken 15 months to process through the courts.
The judge, who told the defendant to sit in the witness box rather than the dock at Bradford Crown Court, asked prosecutors: "Can you explain to me why this charge was ever brought against this lady - she has dropped a single sweet wrapper?
"Is it controlled waste? I've looked it up and I don't see how you could possibly argue that it was controlled waste.
"I cannot for the life of me see it's appropriate."
After handing Miss Wilkinson a caution, which she accepted, the judge added: "I hope you've enjoyed your day in court.
"Please put a sticker up in your car saying 'no litter please, except in your ashtray'."
Miss Wilkinson, an art student, said that she was surprised and confused to have received a letter from the council about the incident in March last year.
She remembered that Lila had been playing with mint wrappers in her car and "making a bit of a mess" however she did not realise one had flown out of the window.
Speaking outside court after the 15-minute hearing, in which her defence lawyer was not required to speak, Miss Wilkinson said: "I thought the judge was great, he really ripped into the prosecution. He really could not believe what I was doing there.
"I am so pleased he was on my side, I'm very grateful that I didn't have to go through with a trial.
"It did feel odd that I was in a major court that deals with murderers and rapists. It was quite scary and quite crazy really.
"I had previously had three appearances at the magistrates' court and this one appearance at crown before anybody realised how daft it was." 8)
A spokesman for Kirklees Council said that the judge's words had "been noted" but stood by the decision to prosecute.
"There can be no doubt that rubbish thrown from vehicles contributes greatly to the defacement of our streets and is a problem local authorities need to address," the spokesman said.
"Miss Wilkinson was charged with an offence because by virtue of Section 33 (5) the person in control of a vehicle is liable for waste thrown from that vehicle whether they threw the waste out or not.
"It was always the intention of the local authority that this matter would be dealt with in the magistrates'court.
"However, Miss Wilkinson herself chose to have the matter heard in the crown court."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ution.html
Judge condemns teenager's sweet wrapper prosecution
A judge has condemned a "grotesque" waste of taxpayers' money spent on prosecuting teenager Larissa Wilkinson for allowing her 18 month-old niece to drop a sweet wrapper.
By Richard Edwards, Crime Correspondent
Published: 2:06PM BST 19 Jun 2009
Miss Wilkinson, 19, was charged with depositing controlled waste after toddler Lila Henderson dropped a mint wrapper out of her car window as she was driving in Huddersfield, West Yorks.
After three appearances at a magistrates' court, and one at a crown court, Judge Roger Scott stepped in to prevent the case going before a jury at an estimated cost of £10,000.
The judge said: "It's the most inappropriate set of proceedings I've personally ever, ever seen and it's a fantastic waste of community charge payers' money.
"This was a grotesque misuse of the powers of the authorities to proceed on indictment for dropping a sweet wrapper."
Miss Wilkinson, an art student, was prosecuted by Kirklees Council in a case which has taken 15 months to process through the courts.
The judge, who told the defendant to sit in the witness box rather than the dock at Bradford Crown Court, asked prosecutors: "Can you explain to me why this charge was ever brought against this lady - she has dropped a single sweet wrapper?
"Is it controlled waste? I've looked it up and I don't see how you could possibly argue that it was controlled waste.
"I cannot for the life of me see it's appropriate."
After handing Miss Wilkinson a caution, which she accepted, the judge added: "I hope you've enjoyed your day in court.
"Please put a sticker up in your car saying 'no litter please, except in your ashtray'."
Miss Wilkinson, an art student, said that she was surprised and confused to have received a letter from the council about the incident in March last year.
She remembered that Lila had been playing with mint wrappers in her car and "making a bit of a mess" however she did not realise one had flown out of the window.
Speaking outside court after the 15-minute hearing, in which her defence lawyer was not required to speak, Miss Wilkinson said: "I thought the judge was great, he really ripped into the prosecution. He really could not believe what I was doing there.
"I am so pleased he was on my side, I'm very grateful that I didn't have to go through with a trial.
"It did feel odd that I was in a major court that deals with murderers and rapists. It was quite scary and quite crazy really.
"I had previously had three appearances at the magistrates' court and this one appearance at crown before anybody realised how daft it was." 8)
A spokesman for Kirklees Council said that the judge's words had "been noted" but stood by the decision to prosecute.
"There can be no doubt that rubbish thrown from vehicles contributes greatly to the defacement of our streets and is a problem local authorities need to address," the spokesman said.
"Miss Wilkinson was charged with an offence because by virtue of Section 33 (5) the person in control of a vehicle is liable for waste thrown from that vehicle whether they threw the waste out or not.
"It was always the intention of the local authority that this matter would be dealt with in the magistrates'court.
"However, Miss Wilkinson herself chose to have the matter heard in the crown court."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... ution.html
OneWingedBird
Beloved of Ra
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2003
- Messages
- 15,431
Bunch of twats. They are still right even when the judge says they are wrong! :shock:
escargot
Disciple of Marduk
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2001
- Messages
- 43,321
- Location
- HM The Tower of London
She'll have been advised to do that by her canny solicitor. You get a jury in the Crown Court and as we've seen, it's all very expensive. Judges will chuck out silly cases like this which the Magistrates' Courts would go ahead with.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
A grim WTF here...
Woman dies in pool of blood in witness box as defendant leaps from dock to slash her with knife
By Allan Hall
Last updated at 8:57 PM on 01st July 2009
A woman witness was fatally stabbed in a courtroom yesterday by the defendant as she gave evidence against him.
The 32-year-old woman was attacked as she testified from the witness box in an appeal over a libel case in Dresden, Germany.
The 28-year-old defendant charged from the dock and knifed her.
In the chaos that followed, a policeman fired a shot and several court officials and members of the public sustained minor injuries as they wrestled the knifeman to the floor.
An emergency doctor was unable to save the victim's life. She was still in the court building when she died.
Police spokesman Thomas Geithner said: 'The man attacked the woman with a knife in the courtroom. She was dead in minutes.'
Her attacker is a Russian-born unemployed warehouseman who was fined last year after losing a libel case.
It involved a woman who said she was verbally abused by him in a children's playground in Dresden. The witness who died had overheard the slur.
Police said there was no reason to believe the defendant was dangerous and he was not searched before entering court. He now faces a murder charge.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... orror.html
Woman dies in pool of blood in witness box as defendant leaps from dock to slash her with knife
By Allan Hall
Last updated at 8:57 PM on 01st July 2009
A woman witness was fatally stabbed in a courtroom yesterday by the defendant as she gave evidence against him.
The 32-year-old woman was attacked as she testified from the witness box in an appeal over a libel case in Dresden, Germany.
The 28-year-old defendant charged from the dock and knifed her.
In the chaos that followed, a policeman fired a shot and several court officials and members of the public sustained minor injuries as they wrestled the knifeman to the floor.
An emergency doctor was unable to save the victim's life. She was still in the court building when she died.
Police spokesman Thomas Geithner said: 'The man attacked the woman with a knife in the courtroom. She was dead in minutes.'
Her attacker is a Russian-born unemployed warehouseman who was fined last year after losing a libel case.
It involved a woman who said she was verbally abused by him in a children's playground in Dresden. The witness who died had overheard the slur.
Police said there was no reason to believe the defendant was dangerous and he was not searched before entering court. He now faces a murder charge.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... orror.html
GNC
King-Sized Canary
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2001
- Messages
- 33,634
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8161786.stm
It's only a matter of time before someone tries to sue a spider...
It's only a matter of time before someone tries to sue a spider...
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Tosses coin: Dumb Cops, or here..?
Film maker is taken to court for stealing 0.003p - at a cost of over £5,000 to the taxpayer
By Arthur Martin
Last updated at 2:25 AM on 19th August 2009
A documentary film-maker was hauled into court on a charge of stealing electricity worth 0.003p.
But by the time the ludicrous case was dropped, the bill to taxpayers was more than £5,000.
Mark Guard, 44, had to appear at two separate hearings before the Crown Prosecution Service finally saw sense.
Mr Guard, who makes documentaries about crime and the homeless, was filming squatters entering a disused building through an open window at 10pm on August 1.
A security sensor inside detected the movement and the alarm was triggered.
The squatters fled but Mr Guard, a former electrician, decided to stay behind and turn off the alarm to save neighbouring families from the noise.
To do so he had to turn on the electricity in the building for a few seconds, to give him light, and then turn it off.
Nine police then arrived in response to the alarm. When Mr Guard told them what he had done, he was arrested and held in a cell for six hours before being charged. :shock:
At his first magistrates' court hearing last week, the film-maker pleaded not guilty and asked for the case to be tried at a crown court so a jury could decide.
He said last night: 'When I told the chairman of the bench I wanted a jury trial, he began to realise the ludicrous nature of the case. He said: "Why is this going to a trial in the crown court when it's going to cost £200,000?".'
But Mr Guard had to appear again in front of Highbury Magistrates in North London, before the charge was dropped.
Experts estimate that the court hearings cost taxpayers £4,200 - Mr Guard's legal bills were paid from public funds - a night in police cells added £385 and the arrest operation around £600.
Mr Guard, from Knightsbridge, West London, said he was astonished the case went as far as it did.
He added: 'I thought I was acting in the public interest. It was late in the evening and I knew families would have struggled to get to sleep if I hadn't done something.
'I even offered to pay 1p to the energy company which supplies electricity to the house, but it's not bothered about collecting such a paltry sum. I've been mugged three times and the police know who did it - but they have never been able to prosecute.
'But on the night in question officers wasted no time in slapping handcuffs on me. I feel this is double standards. If the charges had not been dropped I would have fought all the way.
'Part of me is relieved that I can get back to making my documentary, but most of me is angry that I've been forced to go through all this.'
Neither the squatters nor Mr Guard broke the law by entering the disused house in Camden, North London, because they did not force their way in.
Mr Guard has been following and filming criminals and homeless people in London for two years.
Using hidden cameras he has been able to capture drug deals and shop thefts as they happened.
In 2006, Mr Guard made news when a building firm paid him £3.5million for a plot of land in Surrey he had bought 11 years earlier for just £1,000.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0OcbDKPEw
Film maker is taken to court for stealing 0.003p - at a cost of over £5,000 to the taxpayer
By Arthur Martin
Last updated at 2:25 AM on 19th August 2009
A documentary film-maker was hauled into court on a charge of stealing electricity worth 0.003p.
But by the time the ludicrous case was dropped, the bill to taxpayers was more than £5,000.
Mark Guard, 44, had to appear at two separate hearings before the Crown Prosecution Service finally saw sense.
Mr Guard, who makes documentaries about crime and the homeless, was filming squatters entering a disused building through an open window at 10pm on August 1.
A security sensor inside detected the movement and the alarm was triggered.
The squatters fled but Mr Guard, a former electrician, decided to stay behind and turn off the alarm to save neighbouring families from the noise.
To do so he had to turn on the electricity in the building for a few seconds, to give him light, and then turn it off.
Nine police then arrived in response to the alarm. When Mr Guard told them what he had done, he was arrested and held in a cell for six hours before being charged. :shock:
At his first magistrates' court hearing last week, the film-maker pleaded not guilty and asked for the case to be tried at a crown court so a jury could decide.
He said last night: 'When I told the chairman of the bench I wanted a jury trial, he began to realise the ludicrous nature of the case. He said: "Why is this going to a trial in the crown court when it's going to cost £200,000?".'
But Mr Guard had to appear again in front of Highbury Magistrates in North London, before the charge was dropped.
Experts estimate that the court hearings cost taxpayers £4,200 - Mr Guard's legal bills were paid from public funds - a night in police cells added £385 and the arrest operation around £600.
Mr Guard, from Knightsbridge, West London, said he was astonished the case went as far as it did.
He added: 'I thought I was acting in the public interest. It was late in the evening and I knew families would have struggled to get to sleep if I hadn't done something.
'I even offered to pay 1p to the energy company which supplies electricity to the house, but it's not bothered about collecting such a paltry sum. I've been mugged three times and the police know who did it - but they have never been able to prosecute.
'But on the night in question officers wasted no time in slapping handcuffs on me. I feel this is double standards. If the charges had not been dropped I would have fought all the way.
'Part of me is relieved that I can get back to making my documentary, but most of me is angry that I've been forced to go through all this.'
Neither the squatters nor Mr Guard broke the law by entering the disused house in Camden, North London, because they did not force their way in.
Mr Guard has been following and filming criminals and homeless people in London for two years.
Using hidden cameras he has been able to capture drug deals and shop thefts as they happened.
In 2006, Mr Guard made news when a building firm paid him £3.5million for a plot of land in Surrey he had bought 11 years earlier for just £1,000.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0OcbDKPEw
CarlosTheDJ
Antediluvian
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2007
- Messages
- 7,001
- Location
- Pebble Mill
rynner2 said:
Should be paying his own bloody legal bills then.
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2009
- Messages
- 42
"I,m afraid I was very.....very drunk!!"
Rowley Birkin QC (The Fast Show)
Rowley Birkin QC (The Fast Show)
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
'Plane romp' Guinness heiress is CLEARED. . . because she wasn't drunk over Britain
By Colin Fernandez and Richard Price
Last updated at 7:34 AM on 17th September 2009
The society heiress accused of causing drunken chaos on a plane and having a sexual encounter with a stranger was dramatically cleared yesterday.
Clare Irby, a member of the Guinness brewing family, had been accused of being so intoxicated that she 'lost her inhibitions', allowing a fellow passenger to grope her while his girlfriend slept beside him.
She was also accused of rude and aggressive behaviour towards cabin crew, exposing her G-string during the long-haul flight and repeatedly pressing the call button for 'more booze'.
But it took a jury only 45 minutes to clear the 30-year-old of being drunk on an aircraft because of a legal technicality.
Despite evidence that she was drunk around four hours into the 11-hour flight, the jury could convict her only if they found she had lost control of her faculties over British airspace - the last 20 minutes of the flight as the plane crossed the Channel.
But the jury heard that by the time Miss Irby landed, she had not had a drink for at least six hours because the captain of the plane had banned her from drinking.
A not guilty verdict was subsequently returned.
Miss Irby cried tears of joy as she left Isleworth Crown Court to be hugged by her mother Emma.
etc...
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0RM89OjFh
By Colin Fernandez and Richard Price
Last updated at 7:34 AM on 17th September 2009
The society heiress accused of causing drunken chaos on a plane and having a sexual encounter with a stranger was dramatically cleared yesterday.
Clare Irby, a member of the Guinness brewing family, had been accused of being so intoxicated that she 'lost her inhibitions', allowing a fellow passenger to grope her while his girlfriend slept beside him.
She was also accused of rude and aggressive behaviour towards cabin crew, exposing her G-string during the long-haul flight and repeatedly pressing the call button for 'more booze'.
But it took a jury only 45 minutes to clear the 30-year-old of being drunk on an aircraft because of a legal technicality.
Despite evidence that she was drunk around four hours into the 11-hour flight, the jury could convict her only if they found she had lost control of her faculties over British airspace - the last 20 minutes of the flight as the plane crossed the Channel.
But the jury heard that by the time Miss Irby landed, she had not had a drink for at least six hours because the captain of the plane had banned her from drinking.
A not guilty verdict was subsequently returned.
Miss Irby cried tears of joy as she left Isleworth Crown Court to be hugged by her mother Emma.
etc...
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0RM89OjFh
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,212
- Location
- Eblana
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
And the outcome...rynner said:
Couple forced to sell farm to pay £230,000 repair bill at church where Shakespeare's parents married
By Daily Mail Reporter Last updated at 6:35 AM on 29th September 2009
A couple are selling their farmhouse next to a historic church after losing an 18-year battle to overturn an ancient law that makes them liable for £230,000 repairs to the building.
Andrew and Gail Wallbank say they have no choice but to sell after being saddled with a bill to shore up the crumbling chancel at the 13th century church where Shakespeare's parents married.
Under a law which dates back to the reign of Henry VIII, whoever owns the farm is responsible for the upkeep of St John the Baptist in the picturesque village of Aston Cantlow, near Stratford-upon-Avon, Warwickshire.
The arrangement arose 800 years ago when the church gave the farm 2.75 acres of land.
In exchange, the owners of Glebe Farm were named as 'lay rectors' and agreed to pay for the majority of church repairs.
The couple inherited the farm from Mrs Wallbank’s father in 1990 and were presented with a bill for repairs by the church shortly after.
They contested the case but finally lost in the Court of Appeal last December and are now auctioning the property with a £500,000 guide price.
They plan to use the proceeds of the sale to pay off the £230,000 church repair bill and recoup the £250,000 they have spent on legal fees.
They hope that settling the church bill will buy them and future owners of the house out of the ‘chancel repair liability’.
‘We really didn’t want to sell but we have no choice,’ said Mr Wallbank, 64.
‘We will see very little change from the sale of the house.’
The couple, who have seven grown-up children and one grand-daughter, run a sheep farm in Caersws, Mid Wales.
They were unaware of any repair issues with the church when they inherited the property.
etc...
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0SU3OwyOp
MrRING
Android Futureman
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2002
- Messages
- 6,053
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,212
- Location
- Eblana
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Your patient will sue you now...
The collapse of Bibi Giles’s lurid harassment claim against her gynaecologist exposes the dangers faced by doctors in the privacy of their consulting rooms
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Published: 7:00AM GMT 20 Dec 2009
For most women, it is an experience that can make them feel at their most vulnerable. But when Bibi Giles was referred to a gynaecologist, it was he who was left at the mercy of his patient; exposed and violated, in what became a three-year battle to save his reputation and career.
On Friday, the civil court case against consultant Angus Thomson, 40, accused of sexually assaulting Mrs Giles during an intimate examination, collapsed spectacularly.
The Guyanese-born Mrs Giles had accused Mr Thomson of bringing her to orgasm by touching her inappropriately, while a nurse stood just feet away. She also claimed he had been putting her under pressure to have an affair and harassing her for six months.
But the lurid claims made by the glamorous beautician – Mrs Giles had alleged that Mr Thomson had given her a “leg-buckling orgasm” during an internal examination at his clinic in Worcestershire – had alerted her former GP to the proceedings.
Dr William Dowley, 45, came forward to tell the court that Mrs Giles had previously made advances to him, after admitting to an unusually high libido. “Life would have been much easier,” concluded Judge Daniel Pearce-Higgins, summing up after the civil claim against the doctor was dropped, “if Mrs Giles had admitted this incident at the start of the case. She has got form.” 8)
Standing on the steps of Worcester County Court with his GP wife Lucy, Mr Thomson collapsed in tears as he described the relief of being able to return to work with his professional reputation intact. The three-year ordeal, ending with a week in court, had been “unspeakably stressful”.
The standing of Mrs Giles, 50, is, meanwhile, in tatters. She and her husband, Peter, 65, from Droitwich Spa, with whom she had sought £50,000 from Mr Thomson in a civil case, will instead pay £30,000 to him in costs.
During court hearings, her former gynaecologist painted a picture of her as a fantasist, who claimed to have been a beauty queen and said she had once been Miss Guyana. The court heard that, as a cosmetologist, she had purported to have been involved in treating Michael Jackson and Oprah Winfrey. She had also described her husband – a quantity surveyor – as a Russian diplomat.
Mrs Giles had been referred to Mr Thomson in 2006, after suffering medical problems for 16 years. She claimed that during an internal examination after pelvic surgery, he touched her inappropriately, giving her two orgasms lasting almost two minutes. She also alleged that he then pestered her into having an affair.
However, Mr Thomson, from Worcester, accused her of harassing him, and said that other doctors were well aware of the repeated advances by “Miss Guyana”.
etc...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/women ... ow....html
The collapse of Bibi Giles’s lurid harassment claim against her gynaecologist exposes the dangers faced by doctors in the privacy of their consulting rooms
By Laura Donnelly, Health Correspondent
Published: 7:00AM GMT 20 Dec 2009
For most women, it is an experience that can make them feel at their most vulnerable. But when Bibi Giles was referred to a gynaecologist, it was he who was left at the mercy of his patient; exposed and violated, in what became a three-year battle to save his reputation and career.
On Friday, the civil court case against consultant Angus Thomson, 40, accused of sexually assaulting Mrs Giles during an intimate examination, collapsed spectacularly.
The Guyanese-born Mrs Giles had accused Mr Thomson of bringing her to orgasm by touching her inappropriately, while a nurse stood just feet away. She also claimed he had been putting her under pressure to have an affair and harassing her for six months.
But the lurid claims made by the glamorous beautician – Mrs Giles had alleged that Mr Thomson had given her a “leg-buckling orgasm” during an internal examination at his clinic in Worcestershire – had alerted her former GP to the proceedings.
Dr William Dowley, 45, came forward to tell the court that Mrs Giles had previously made advances to him, after admitting to an unusually high libido. “Life would have been much easier,” concluded Judge Daniel Pearce-Higgins, summing up after the civil claim against the doctor was dropped, “if Mrs Giles had admitted this incident at the start of the case. She has got form.” 8)
Standing on the steps of Worcester County Court with his GP wife Lucy, Mr Thomson collapsed in tears as he described the relief of being able to return to work with his professional reputation intact. The three-year ordeal, ending with a week in court, had been “unspeakably stressful”.
The standing of Mrs Giles, 50, is, meanwhile, in tatters. She and her husband, Peter, 65, from Droitwich Spa, with whom she had sought £50,000 from Mr Thomson in a civil case, will instead pay £30,000 to him in costs.
During court hearings, her former gynaecologist painted a picture of her as a fantasist, who claimed to have been a beauty queen and said she had once been Miss Guyana. The court heard that, as a cosmetologist, she had purported to have been involved in treating Michael Jackson and Oprah Winfrey. She had also described her husband – a quantity surveyor – as a Russian diplomat.
Mrs Giles had been referred to Mr Thomson in 2006, after suffering medical problems for 16 years. She claimed that during an internal examination after pelvic surgery, he touched her inappropriately, giving her two orgasms lasting almost two minutes. She also alleged that he then pestered her into having an affair.
However, Mr Thomson, from Worcester, accused her of harassing him, and said that other doctors were well aware of the repeated advances by “Miss Guyana”.
etc...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/women ... ow....html
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Drug giant General Electric uses libel law to gag doctor
Henrik Thomsen faces libel action after raising the alarm over the potentially fatal risks of a drug
Jon Ungoed-Thomas and Jeff Gerth
General Electric, one of the world’s biggest corporations, is using the London libel courts to gag a senior radiologist after he raised the alarm over the potentially fatal risks of one of its drugs.
The multinational is suing Henrik Thomsen, a Danish academic, after he described his experiences of one of the company’s drugs as a medical “nightmare”. He said some kidney patients at his hospital contracted a potentially deadly condition after being administered the drug Omniscan.
GE Healthcare, a British subsidiary of General Electric, has run up more than £380,000 in legal costs pursuing Thomsen.
“I believe the lawsuit is an attempt to silence me,” he said last week. “It’s dangerous for the patient if we can’t frankly exchange views.”
The company admits its product has been linked to serious side effects in some patients, but said Thomsen accused the company of suppressing information in a presentation at a scientific congress in Oxford in October 2007.
A summary of Thomsen’s presentation for the High Court writ, provided by GE Healthcare, appears to show that it was an even-handed account of his clinical experience.
When asked by The Sunday Times to highlight any part of the presentation that explicitly stated wrongdoing by GE Healthcare, a spokeswoman for the company was unable to do so. The writ states that the defamation may have been “by way of innuendo”.
His case will trigger a fresh row over the draconian use of Britain’s libel laws to stifle scientific debate and silence critics. Thomsen now refuses to discuss the possible risks of the drug in any UK public forum.
Evan Harris, a former hospital doctor and the Liberal Democrat science spokesman, who is leading the parliamentary campaign to reform the libel laws, said: “It is hard to conceive a stronger public interest than scientists and clinicians being able to discuss freely their concerns about drugs or devices used on patients. Libel laws should not be used in this way.”
etc...
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 962865.ece
Henrik Thomsen faces libel action after raising the alarm over the potentially fatal risks of a drug
Jon Ungoed-Thomas and Jeff Gerth
General Electric, one of the world’s biggest corporations, is using the London libel courts to gag a senior radiologist after he raised the alarm over the potentially fatal risks of one of its drugs.
The multinational is suing Henrik Thomsen, a Danish academic, after he described his experiences of one of the company’s drugs as a medical “nightmare”. He said some kidney patients at his hospital contracted a potentially deadly condition after being administered the drug Omniscan.
GE Healthcare, a British subsidiary of General Electric, has run up more than £380,000 in legal costs pursuing Thomsen.
“I believe the lawsuit is an attempt to silence me,” he said last week. “It’s dangerous for the patient if we can’t frankly exchange views.”
The company admits its product has been linked to serious side effects in some patients, but said Thomsen accused the company of suppressing information in a presentation at a scientific congress in Oxford in October 2007.
A summary of Thomsen’s presentation for the High Court writ, provided by GE Healthcare, appears to show that it was an even-handed account of his clinical experience.
When asked by The Sunday Times to highlight any part of the presentation that explicitly stated wrongdoing by GE Healthcare, a spokeswoman for the company was unable to do so. The writ states that the defamation may have been “by way of innuendo”.
His case will trigger a fresh row over the draconian use of Britain’s libel laws to stifle scientific debate and silence critics. Thomsen now refuses to discuss the possible risks of the drug in any UK public forum.
Evan Harris, a former hospital doctor and the Liberal Democrat science spokesman, who is leading the parliamentary campaign to reform the libel laws, said: “It is hard to conceive a stronger public interest than scientists and clinicians being able to discuss freely their concerns about drugs or devices used on patients. Libel laws should not be used in this way.”
etc...
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/b ... 962865.ece
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
The strange case of three dead goldfish, a bottle of bleach and a £2,000 trial that collapsed
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:22 AM on 23rd January 2010
As any rookie detective knows, if you're going to get a result you need a watertight case.
The Norwich goldfish killings looked straightforward enough: Three dead, the stench of bleach and an obvious prime suspect.
It should have been open and shut - but sadly it wasn't.
When the case reached court, an exasperated magistrate was alerted to a glaring omission in the prosecution's evidence and threw the matter out.
It seemed the long arm of the law hadn't extended to testing the fish tank water for bleach. Police had decided not to because the analysis would have cost too much.
Last night as all concerned were counting the cost of the case - likely to be thousands of pounds - a legal source said: 'It begs the question why on earth it got to court in the first place if the evidence was not sorted out.'
Chantelle Amies, 19, had been accused of poisoning the pet fish, which belonged to a neighbour's four-year- old son, by pouring bleach into their water following a dispute.
The shocked teenager, who denied killing the £7 pets last September, was arrested and charged with criminal damage.
Susanna Chowdhury, prosecuting, said Miss Amies's fingerprints had been found on a bottle of bleach in the house and on the fish tank.
The prosecution had three witnesses saying they had smelled bleach in the fish tank. But the court was told that although the fish water had
been taken by police they had not sent it away for testing.
It is believed the decision was taken after the Crown Prosecution Service suggested the evidence of witnesses who smelt bleach was strong enough to secure a conviction.
But Philip Farr, defending, said they could not prove there had been bleach in the tank or whether the fish had been killed by bleach. As a result, chairman of the bench, Mary-Anne Massey, decided there was no case to answer.
The average magistrates' trial is estimated to cost at least £2,000.
But this was the third time the case had been listed in court requiring parties to be present, meaning the final bill could be much higher.
Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, criticised the CPS for bringing the matter to court. He said: 'Regardless of the type of offence being alleged, it is wasteful and unjust to bring a case all the way to court without sufficient evidence. Given that there are plenty of stronger cases that never get fully pursued, the CPS need to work harder at securing good value.'
The CPS refused to say how much the saga had cost. A spokesman said: 'We obviously felt we had enough evidence for a conviction and that it was in the public interest to bring the case to court.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0dQkKivk5
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:22 AM on 23rd January 2010
As any rookie detective knows, if you're going to get a result you need a watertight case.
The Norwich goldfish killings looked straightforward enough: Three dead, the stench of bleach and an obvious prime suspect.
It should have been open and shut - but sadly it wasn't.
When the case reached court, an exasperated magistrate was alerted to a glaring omission in the prosecution's evidence and threw the matter out.
It seemed the long arm of the law hadn't extended to testing the fish tank water for bleach. Police had decided not to because the analysis would have cost too much.
Last night as all concerned were counting the cost of the case - likely to be thousands of pounds - a legal source said: 'It begs the question why on earth it got to court in the first place if the evidence was not sorted out.'
Chantelle Amies, 19, had been accused of poisoning the pet fish, which belonged to a neighbour's four-year- old son, by pouring bleach into their water following a dispute.
The shocked teenager, who denied killing the £7 pets last September, was arrested and charged with criminal damage.
Susanna Chowdhury, prosecuting, said Miss Amies's fingerprints had been found on a bottle of bleach in the house and on the fish tank.
The prosecution had three witnesses saying they had smelled bleach in the fish tank. But the court was told that although the fish water had
been taken by police they had not sent it away for testing.
It is believed the decision was taken after the Crown Prosecution Service suggested the evidence of witnesses who smelt bleach was strong enough to secure a conviction.
But Philip Farr, defending, said they could not prove there had been bleach in the tank or whether the fish had been killed by bleach. As a result, chairman of the bench, Mary-Anne Massey, decided there was no case to answer.
The average magistrates' trial is estimated to cost at least £2,000.
But this was the third time the case had been listed in court requiring parties to be present, meaning the final bill could be much higher.
Matthew Elliott, of the TaxPayers' Alliance, criticised the CPS for bringing the matter to court. He said: 'Regardless of the type of offence being alleged, it is wasteful and unjust to bring a case all the way to court without sufficient evidence. Given that there are plenty of stronger cases that never get fully pursued, the CPS need to work harder at securing good value.'
The CPS refused to say how much the saga had cost. A spokesman said: 'We obviously felt we had enough evidence for a conviction and that it was in the public interest to bring the case to court.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0dQkKivk5
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,212
- Location
- Eblana
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,212
- Location
- Eblana
Malaysia court fines adulterers four buffaloes
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8490212.stm
Map
A Malaysian court has fined a man and a woman four buffaloes and a pig after they were found guilty of an extra-marital affair, a local report says.
The pair were convicted by the Native Court in Penampang on Borneo island, after the man's wife lodged a complaint last year, said the Star newspaper.
She had found her husband wearing shorts at his second home with her colleague, who was wearing a sarong.
The court in Sabah state rejected their claim they were just "best friends".
Convicting the pair under customary local laws, Judge William Sampil said on Friday there was strong evidence the pair had had an affair, reported the Star.
They were ordered to compensate their communities with the livestock, valued at about 6,500 ringgit ($1,900; £1,200) for their tryst.
They were also reportedly each fined 1,000 ringgit.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8490212.stm
Map
A Malaysian court has fined a man and a woman four buffaloes and a pig after they were found guilty of an extra-marital affair, a local report says.
The pair were convicted by the Native Court in Penampang on Borneo island, after the man's wife lodged a complaint last year, said the Star newspaper.
She had found her husband wearing shorts at his second home with her colleague, who was wearing a sarong.
The court in Sabah state rejected their claim they were just "best friends".
Convicting the pair under customary local laws, Judge William Sampil said on Friday there was strong evidence the pair had had an affair, reported the Star.
They were ordered to compensate their communities with the livestock, valued at about 6,500 ringgit ($1,900; £1,200) for their tryst.
They were also reportedly each fined 1,000 ringgit.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
What a load of rubbish! Neighbours' disgust as hoarder wins 'human rights' fight to keep garden eyesore
By Colin Fernandez
Last updated at 12:28 AM on 01st March 2010
After years of complaint about the garbage in Richard Wallace's garden, villagers were delighted when the council ordered him to clear it up.
But the 59-year-old bachelor refused to take the decision lying down.
He took the case first to magistrates, then to the crown court arguing that it was his 'human right' to hoard junk on his two adjacent properties.
Yesterday he was 'walking on air' after a judge ruled in his favour.
Neighbours, however, were incredulous. 'What about our human right to a clean environment?' said one.
Another added: 'It's a ridiculous decision. If you look on Google's satellite image of the road you can see the junk - that's how much there is.'
Mr Wallace lives in a bungalow and uses the semi-detached house next door for storage in Westcott, near Dorking, Surrey.
Apart from blighting their chances in best-kept village contests, neighbours feared that the detritus outside his properties was a health hazard.
In his front garden, within a conservation area and a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, are hundreds of bags of household waste and packaging. Six old cars - three Jaguars, one Audi and two Wolseleys dating from the 1940s to the 1970s - are clearly visible.
Other items he has hoarded include bags of tin cans, an office chair covered with moss, a pushchair, tarpaulins, old front doors and kitchen sinks.
He also has a collection of newspapers stretching back 34 years.
Robert Primrose, a senior planning enforcement officer with Mole Valley council, served an order against Mr Wallace under the Town and Country Planning Act telling him to clear the mess.
He appealed unsuccessfully to magistrates, then won his case at Guildford Crown Court after Recorder Christopher Purchas QC studied photographs of the area.
Robert Primrose, a senior planning enforcement officer with the council brought an order against Mr Wallace under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
He told the court: 'I arrived in June 2003 at Mole Valley and we visited the site in Westcott since that time, it became apparent that it is in a state of disrepair.
'The front gardens were overgrown and full of rubbish. I have visited it several times over the last eight years. It has been like this for a number of years and Mr Wallace is still taking material into the property and there has been not improvement since we served the notice.
'I have had a number of complaints from the parish council of Westcott, who have received complaints from the residents of Westcott.'
After looking at the photographs Recorder Christopher Purchas QC of Guildford Crown Court said: 'We have come to the conclusion that the local authority weren't justified.
etc...
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0gvFmaLOH
What next? Hooligans claiming it's their 'Human Right' to punch you in the face?
By Colin Fernandez
Last updated at 12:28 AM on 01st March 2010
After years of complaint about the garbage in Richard Wallace's garden, villagers were delighted when the council ordered him to clear it up.
But the 59-year-old bachelor refused to take the decision lying down.
He took the case first to magistrates, then to the crown court arguing that it was his 'human right' to hoard junk on his two adjacent properties.
Yesterday he was 'walking on air' after a judge ruled in his favour.
Neighbours, however, were incredulous. 'What about our human right to a clean environment?' said one.
Another added: 'It's a ridiculous decision. If you look on Google's satellite image of the road you can see the junk - that's how much there is.'
Mr Wallace lives in a bungalow and uses the semi-detached house next door for storage in Westcott, near Dorking, Surrey.
Apart from blighting their chances in best-kept village contests, neighbours feared that the detritus outside his properties was a health hazard.
In his front garden, within a conservation area and a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, are hundreds of bags of household waste and packaging. Six old cars - three Jaguars, one Audi and two Wolseleys dating from the 1940s to the 1970s - are clearly visible.
Other items he has hoarded include bags of tin cans, an office chair covered with moss, a pushchair, tarpaulins, old front doors and kitchen sinks.
He also has a collection of newspapers stretching back 34 years.
Robert Primrose, a senior planning enforcement officer with Mole Valley council, served an order against Mr Wallace under the Town and Country Planning Act telling him to clear the mess.
He appealed unsuccessfully to magistrates, then won his case at Guildford Crown Court after Recorder Christopher Purchas QC studied photographs of the area.
Robert Primrose, a senior planning enforcement officer with the council brought an order against Mr Wallace under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act.
He told the court: 'I arrived in June 2003 at Mole Valley and we visited the site in Westcott since that time, it became apparent that it is in a state of disrepair.
'The front gardens were overgrown and full of rubbish. I have visited it several times over the last eight years. It has been like this for a number of years and Mr Wallace is still taking material into the property and there has been not improvement since we served the notice.
'I have had a number of complaints from the parish council of Westcott, who have received complaints from the residents of Westcott.'
After looking at the photographs Recorder Christopher Purchas QC of Guildford Crown Court said: 'We have come to the conclusion that the local authority weren't justified.
etc...
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0gvFmaLOH
What next? Hooligans claiming it's their 'Human Right' to punch you in the face?
ramonmercado
CyberPunk
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2003
- Messages
- 58,212
- Location
- Eblana
This judge is an ass. Hopefully the High Court will over turn the ruling.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Eccentric hoarder has every copy of The Daily Telegraph for 34 years
An eccentric hoarder has kept every copy of The Daily Telegraph published in the last 34 years.
Published: 7:30AM GMT 03 Mar 2010
Richard Wallace, 59, has a huge mountain of 25,000 newspapers, also including every copy of the Daily Mail in the same period, stacked up in his house and garden.
He confessed to the pile of papers after winning a legal victory overturning a council order demanding he clean up his home and garden.
Mr Wallace has collected every single copy of the Mail and the Telegraph, including their Sunday sister editions, since 1976 and now refuses to throw them out.
He can barely move about his home because of the towering piles of newspapers which are stacked up against every door and window.
From the road his home is barely visible behind the overgrown and rotting vegetation, piles of wooden pallets, six rusting vintage cars and hundreds of bags crammed with empty tin cans and plastic bottles.
Mr Wallace, who is regularly caught rooting through his neighbours' rubbish bins, has piled rotting waste right up to the doors and windows of his property making it virtually impossible to get in an out.
Despite this a Crown Court Judge has overturned a council order which was forcing Mr Wallace to clean up his garden, claiming the evidence "does not go far enough."
Neighbours branded Mr Wallace their very own "Stig of the Dump" and called for the Judge to visit the rat-infested site.
However, the semi-retired television engineer said: "I just can't bear to see perfectly good things being thrown away. I appreciate it is in a state and when I get a bit more time I will do something about it.
"People throw all sorts of things in skips which I think would be useful and it just builds up."
He said he started collecting newspapers so he would never lose important articles and has now become attached to the towering piles that litter his home.
Six old cars - including three Jaguars, one Audi and two Austin Wolseys all dating from the 1940s to the 1970s - were clearly visible, rusting in the garden.
Other items the hoarder has stashed in his garden amongst the bags of tin cans include an office chair covered on green moss, a child's pushchair, tarpaulins, old wooden front doors and kitchen sinks.
Mole Valley District Council served Mr Wallace with a notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act in May last year.
He was ordered to remove the plastic bottles, tins, newspapers and other waste as well as cut back the overgrown vegetation at his two neighbouring properties in the tiny village of Wescott, near Dorking, Surrey.
Mr Wallace appealed against the decision, at first unsuccessfully at the magistrate's court and then on February 15 at Guildford Crown Court.
At the hearing he claimed he was storing the items until he got a chance to sort through them and could not understand why people got "on their high horse about it."
Mr Recorder Christopher Purchas upheld the appeal claiming that the evidence did not go far enough to show Mr Wallace was "interfering with the amenity of other people who live in the locality."
Mr Wallace claimed the court case, in which he represented himself, left him feeling "exhilarating."
A spokesman for Mole Vale District Council said that the court did not consider the state of the land had an adverse effect on the amenity of the area and dismissed the notice.
Councillor Chris Hunt, portfolio holder for strategic planning, said "Naturally we are disappointed with this outcome. The council will reflect on the court's decision including whether there is any other action that can be taken."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... years.html
An eccentric hoarder has kept every copy of The Daily Telegraph published in the last 34 years.
Published: 7:30AM GMT 03 Mar 2010
Richard Wallace, 59, has a huge mountain of 25,000 newspapers, also including every copy of the Daily Mail in the same period, stacked up in his house and garden.
He confessed to the pile of papers after winning a legal victory overturning a council order demanding he clean up his home and garden.
Mr Wallace has collected every single copy of the Mail and the Telegraph, including their Sunday sister editions, since 1976 and now refuses to throw them out.
He can barely move about his home because of the towering piles of newspapers which are stacked up against every door and window.
From the road his home is barely visible behind the overgrown and rotting vegetation, piles of wooden pallets, six rusting vintage cars and hundreds of bags crammed with empty tin cans and plastic bottles.
Mr Wallace, who is regularly caught rooting through his neighbours' rubbish bins, has piled rotting waste right up to the doors and windows of his property making it virtually impossible to get in an out.
Despite this a Crown Court Judge has overturned a council order which was forcing Mr Wallace to clean up his garden, claiming the evidence "does not go far enough."
Neighbours branded Mr Wallace their very own "Stig of the Dump" and called for the Judge to visit the rat-infested site.
However, the semi-retired television engineer said: "I just can't bear to see perfectly good things being thrown away. I appreciate it is in a state and when I get a bit more time I will do something about it.
"People throw all sorts of things in skips which I think would be useful and it just builds up."
He said he started collecting newspapers so he would never lose important articles and has now become attached to the towering piles that litter his home.
Six old cars - including three Jaguars, one Audi and two Austin Wolseys all dating from the 1940s to the 1970s - were clearly visible, rusting in the garden.
Other items the hoarder has stashed in his garden amongst the bags of tin cans include an office chair covered on green moss, a child's pushchair, tarpaulins, old wooden front doors and kitchen sinks.
Mole Valley District Council served Mr Wallace with a notice under Section 215 of the Town and Country Planning Act in May last year.
He was ordered to remove the plastic bottles, tins, newspapers and other waste as well as cut back the overgrown vegetation at his two neighbouring properties in the tiny village of Wescott, near Dorking, Surrey.
Mr Wallace appealed against the decision, at first unsuccessfully at the magistrate's court and then on February 15 at Guildford Crown Court.
At the hearing he claimed he was storing the items until he got a chance to sort through them and could not understand why people got "on their high horse about it."
Mr Recorder Christopher Purchas upheld the appeal claiming that the evidence did not go far enough to show Mr Wallace was "interfering with the amenity of other people who live in the locality."
Mr Wallace claimed the court case, in which he represented himself, left him feeling "exhilarating."
A spokesman for Mole Vale District Council said that the court did not consider the state of the land had an adverse effect on the amenity of the area and dismissed the notice.
Councillor Chris Hunt, portfolio holder for strategic planning, said "Naturally we are disappointed with this outcome. The council will reflect on the court's decision including whether there is any other action that can be taken."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstop ... years.html
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
Blunder by jury could see appeal in dog murder case
By Mark Hughes, Crime Correspondent
Saturday, 20 March 2010
The question every jury is asked when returning a verdict is: "Is it unanimous?" Not a particularly complicated enquiry, but one which proved confusing for one Old Bailey foreman. On Thursday, the jury in the murder case of Chrisdian Johnson, the 22-year-old who used his dog to maul his victim before stabbing him to death, returned a unanimous verdict.
But as the news channels were reporting Johnson's conviction, a phone rang in the Old Bailey. One of the jurors had called the court to say the verdict was not unanimous.
Given that Judge Christopher Moss had not given the jurors permission to return a majority verdict, there was a question mark over whether the verdict could stand. And so yesterday, after a series of phone calls to get the jury back to court, Thursday's verdict was nullified and the jury was sent out again, this time with a majority direction, and told to reconvene. They returned less than an hour later with a majority verdict of 10-2.
The bizarre episode has led to suggestions that the confusion could open the door for Johnson's defence to appeal, not least because yesterday morning's newspapers carried potentially prejudicial reports of his guilt before he had technically been convicted.
Felicity Gerry, a criminal barrister, said: "The defendant's barrister will have to consider whether anything that occurred overnight could have influenced the jury." Professor Gary Slapper, an expert in criminal law, described the episode as "extraordinary and inexplicable". He added: "Unless the jury foreman was struck with amnesia or simply did not know what the word 'unanimous' meant, it is very difficult to understand why he answered yes to that question. The judge seems to have acted entirely properly." But it "raises the possibility of an appeal", he added.
After the proper verdict, Judge Moss sentenced Johnson to life with a minimum of 24 years for the murder of 16-year-old Seyi Ogunyemi. Johnson used his bull terrier Tyson to maul Seyi, before he stabbed the youth, who suffered from Crohn's disease and weighed just 7st. DNA taken from his dog matched to blood at the scene. It was the first time dog DNA had been used in a British court.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 24340.html
By Mark Hughes, Crime Correspondent
Saturday, 20 March 2010
The question every jury is asked when returning a verdict is: "Is it unanimous?" Not a particularly complicated enquiry, but one which proved confusing for one Old Bailey foreman. On Thursday, the jury in the murder case of Chrisdian Johnson, the 22-year-old who used his dog to maul his victim before stabbing him to death, returned a unanimous verdict.
But as the news channels were reporting Johnson's conviction, a phone rang in the Old Bailey. One of the jurors had called the court to say the verdict was not unanimous.
Given that Judge Christopher Moss had not given the jurors permission to return a majority verdict, there was a question mark over whether the verdict could stand. And so yesterday, after a series of phone calls to get the jury back to court, Thursday's verdict was nullified and the jury was sent out again, this time with a majority direction, and told to reconvene. They returned less than an hour later with a majority verdict of 10-2.
The bizarre episode has led to suggestions that the confusion could open the door for Johnson's defence to appeal, not least because yesterday morning's newspapers carried potentially prejudicial reports of his guilt before he had technically been convicted.
Felicity Gerry, a criminal barrister, said: "The defendant's barrister will have to consider whether anything that occurred overnight could have influenced the jury." Professor Gary Slapper, an expert in criminal law, described the episode as "extraordinary and inexplicable". He added: "Unless the jury foreman was struck with amnesia or simply did not know what the word 'unanimous' meant, it is very difficult to understand why he answered yes to that question. The judge seems to have acted entirely properly." But it "raises the possibility of an appeal", he added.
After the proper verdict, Judge Moss sentenced Johnson to life with a minimum of 24 years for the murder of 16-year-old Seyi Ogunyemi. Johnson used his bull terrier Tyson to maul Seyi, before he stabbed the youth, who suffered from Crohn's disease and weighed just 7st. DNA taken from his dog matched to blood at the scene. It was the first time dog DNA had been used in a British court.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 24340.html
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
£200,000 bill for widow seeking to recover lost Rolf Harris painting
David Sanderson
A widow who tried to recover a lost Rolf Harris painting bought by her husband now faces a legal bill upwards of £200,000.
Dean Hardy bought Lovers on the Seine II for £95,000 as an investment in 2005 and left it for safekeeping with Castle Galleries in the Midlands. But shortly after his death Maxine Hardy, having contacted the gallery to ask about the painting’s whereabouts, was “fobbed off”.
She then launched a succesful civil action claiming that Washington Green Fine Art Publishing, a subsidiary of Halcyon Fine Art Galleries — the new owners of Castle Galleries — had lost the artwork.
In a verdict last June that stunned the art world, the judge, Simon Brown, QC, described Halcyon’s chief executive, Udi Sheleg, as an “éminence grise” who knew “full well where the painting is or where it has gone and that he is personally and dishonestly responsible for its loss”.
He awarded Mrs Hardy £135,000 to cover the value of the painting, interest and legal costs.
Unfortunately for Mrs Hardy, from Nottinghamshire, the Court of Appeal this month overturned the judge’s verdict and ordered her to pay all the costs, which are estimated to top £200,000. :shock:
Lord Justice Longmore said that the original judge was wrong to find personal dishonesty against Mr Sheleg. He said: “The judgment is so tainted by the conclusion that Mr Sheleg is a thief that the judge’s conclusion on possession cannot be allowed to stand and the judgment in Mrs Hardy’s favour will, unfortunately, have to be set aside.”
The case highlighted the unexpectedly high value of Rolf Harris’ paintings. The 79-year-old Australian, who was described as a national treasure by this newspaper in 2006 and whose standing in the art world increased immeasurably after he was chosen to paint a portrait of the Queen in 2005, regulary sells paintings for five-figure sums.
Lovers on the Seine II is, to date, his most expensive painting known to have been sold. Harris has refused to comment on the case. A spokeswoman said that he never publicly discussed the value of his paintings, only the quality.
The court was told during the appeal hearing that after being bought by Mr Hardy the artwork had been left in storage at Castle Galleries’ warehouse in Warwick in April 2005.
After Castle Galleries was bought by Halcyon Fine Art Galleries, the company decided that Castle’s assets and those of another subsidiary company, Washington Green Fine Art Publishing, should be kept separate although their operations should be combined.
Mrs Hardy had launched her claim against Washington Green, saying that it had ownership of the picture.
However, the appeal court judges rejected Mrs Hardy's claim that the distinction made between Washington Green and Castle Galleries was merely a "fraudulent device to use the corporate veil" to defeat her claim.
They ruled that it had never been shown that Washington Green had come into possession of the painting and hence any claim had to be made against the insurers of the now-defunct Castle Galleries.
A spokeswoman for Washington Green confirmed that the painting had not yet turned up.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 070479.ece
David Sanderson
A widow who tried to recover a lost Rolf Harris painting bought by her husband now faces a legal bill upwards of £200,000.
Dean Hardy bought Lovers on the Seine II for £95,000 as an investment in 2005 and left it for safekeeping with Castle Galleries in the Midlands. But shortly after his death Maxine Hardy, having contacted the gallery to ask about the painting’s whereabouts, was “fobbed off”.
She then launched a succesful civil action claiming that Washington Green Fine Art Publishing, a subsidiary of Halcyon Fine Art Galleries — the new owners of Castle Galleries — had lost the artwork.
In a verdict last June that stunned the art world, the judge, Simon Brown, QC, described Halcyon’s chief executive, Udi Sheleg, as an “éminence grise” who knew “full well where the painting is or where it has gone and that he is personally and dishonestly responsible for its loss”.
He awarded Mrs Hardy £135,000 to cover the value of the painting, interest and legal costs.
Unfortunately for Mrs Hardy, from Nottinghamshire, the Court of Appeal this month overturned the judge’s verdict and ordered her to pay all the costs, which are estimated to top £200,000. :shock:
Lord Justice Longmore said that the original judge was wrong to find personal dishonesty against Mr Sheleg. He said: “The judgment is so tainted by the conclusion that Mr Sheleg is a thief that the judge’s conclusion on possession cannot be allowed to stand and the judgment in Mrs Hardy’s favour will, unfortunately, have to be set aside.”
The case highlighted the unexpectedly high value of Rolf Harris’ paintings. The 79-year-old Australian, who was described as a national treasure by this newspaper in 2006 and whose standing in the art world increased immeasurably after he was chosen to paint a portrait of the Queen in 2005, regulary sells paintings for five-figure sums.
Lovers on the Seine II is, to date, his most expensive painting known to have been sold. Harris has refused to comment on the case. A spokeswoman said that he never publicly discussed the value of his paintings, only the quality.
The court was told during the appeal hearing that after being bought by Mr Hardy the artwork had been left in storage at Castle Galleries’ warehouse in Warwick in April 2005.
After Castle Galleries was bought by Halcyon Fine Art Galleries, the company decided that Castle’s assets and those of another subsidiary company, Washington Green Fine Art Publishing, should be kept separate although their operations should be combined.
Mrs Hardy had launched her claim against Washington Green, saying that it had ownership of the picture.
However, the appeal court judges rejected Mrs Hardy's claim that the distinction made between Washington Green and Castle Galleries was merely a "fraudulent device to use the corporate veil" to defeat her claim.
They ruled that it had never been shown that Washington Green had come into possession of the painting and hence any claim had to be made against the insurers of the now-defunct Castle Galleries.
A spokeswoman for Washington Green confirmed that the painting had not yet turned up.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 070479.ece
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2001
- Messages
- 54,631
‘We thought of ourselves as calendar girls’
Claire Finch was tried for running a brothel in a sleepy village in Bedfordshire, but even the judge was smiling when she was cleared
Alice Fishburn and Hattie Garlick
Police raids at 10.45 in the morning are not common in the sleepy cul-de-sac of Chalton Heights, Bedfordshire. When the banging on the door began, Claire Finch was getting ready to have a bath. Although the small massage parlour she ran from her home was not yet open, she headed downstairs in her dressing gown.
Before she could reach the door reserved for her clients, several police officers kicked it in. :shock: Outside, 20 others had surrounded the house with four cars, three vans and a team of sniffer dogs. The 49-year-old was arrested and charged with brothel keeping, a crime under the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 that carries a maximum prison sentence of seven years.
“We thought of ourselves as calendar girls,” says Finch today, sitting in her lounge as she describes the parlour where six middle-aged women, two or three working at any one time, sold massages with “happy endings”.
The prosecution’s view was less rose-tinted. Although women are legally entitled to sell sex individually, if they club together they risk a charge of brothel keeping for whoever has their name on the lease. “We weren’t worried though,” she continues, gesturing with an immaculately manicured hand. “A blind eye has been turned for so many years. You only have to open a paper to see the ads stating ‘Choice of eight ladies’.”
“We weren’t women doing drugs on street corners or even Belle de Jour, nipping off to Italy on the weekend. We were just middle-aged ladies trying to pay the mortgage,” she says.
The jury, it seemed, sympathised with her. Despite the legislation, Finch was cleared of keeping a brothel last month. Three of her neighbours, including an 87-year-old woman testified on her behalf in court, while another sent a letter of support. They told the jury that Finch was a decent member of the community who cared for an ill and incontinent neighbour and would look after their children in an emergency.
As the verdict was read out, Finch remembers seeing her daughter, neighbours and friends in tears. “It was a wonderful moment winning that case. Better than winning the lottery,” she says. “I was ecstatic. The whole place erupted . . . the policewoman squeezed my hand. Even the judge was smiling.”
“The question is whether it was in the public interest to prosecute the matter in the first instance,” says Finch’s solicitor, Stephen Halloran. “Parliament really needs to look at changing the law if a jury has lost confidence in something that’s more than 50 years old.”
According to research compiled by the English Collective of Prostitutes, working indoors is ten times safer than on the streets. The group also believes that the legislation on brothel-keeping needs to be changed, claiming that an increasing number of raids are forcing more women to work alone. The murder of the prostitute Andrea Waddell, who was found burned and strangled in her Brighton flat, where she worked alone, is cited as evidence of the dangers posed to this vulnerable group.
Certainly it is hard to imagine a more sheltered and suburban setting than Chalton. Among the rows of large detached houses, the voluptuous Grecian statues in the driveway easily identify Finch’s home. Inside, a disco ball hangs above a thick cream carpet; scented candles and oils subtly mask the smell of four pampered cats. The centre of her business operations is a converted downstairs office, now complete with massage table, whirlpool and copious amounts of hand sanitiser. Finch took a percentage of the group’s earnings for providing advertising and the premises, but each woman could choose what she wanted to offer to clients and when. “We were a happy house of women,” she recalls. There was always a friend on hand to intervene if a situation became threatening and chat to if it was a slow work day. “We talked about cushions, children or menstrual cycles. I don’t have a bunch of Ukrainians strapped to things in the cellar.” 8)
etc...
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life ... 125757.ece
Claire Finch was tried for running a brothel in a sleepy village in Bedfordshire, but even the judge was smiling when she was cleared
Alice Fishburn and Hattie Garlick
Police raids at 10.45 in the morning are not common in the sleepy cul-de-sac of Chalton Heights, Bedfordshire. When the banging on the door began, Claire Finch was getting ready to have a bath. Although the small massage parlour she ran from her home was not yet open, she headed downstairs in her dressing gown.
Before she could reach the door reserved for her clients, several police officers kicked it in. :shock: Outside, 20 others had surrounded the house with four cars, three vans and a team of sniffer dogs. The 49-year-old was arrested and charged with brothel keeping, a crime under the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 that carries a maximum prison sentence of seven years.
“We thought of ourselves as calendar girls,” says Finch today, sitting in her lounge as she describes the parlour where six middle-aged women, two or three working at any one time, sold massages with “happy endings”.
The prosecution’s view was less rose-tinted. Although women are legally entitled to sell sex individually, if they club together they risk a charge of brothel keeping for whoever has their name on the lease. “We weren’t worried though,” she continues, gesturing with an immaculately manicured hand. “A blind eye has been turned for so many years. You only have to open a paper to see the ads stating ‘Choice of eight ladies’.”“We weren’t women doing drugs on street corners or even Belle de Jour, nipping off to Italy on the weekend. We were just middle-aged ladies trying to pay the mortgage,” she says.
The jury, it seemed, sympathised with her. Despite the legislation, Finch was cleared of keeping a brothel last month. Three of her neighbours, including an 87-year-old woman testified on her behalf in court, while another sent a letter of support. They told the jury that Finch was a decent member of the community who cared for an ill and incontinent neighbour and would look after their children in an emergency.
As the verdict was read out, Finch remembers seeing her daughter, neighbours and friends in tears. “It was a wonderful moment winning that case. Better than winning the lottery,” she says. “I was ecstatic. The whole place erupted . . . the policewoman squeezed my hand. Even the judge was smiling.”
“The question is whether it was in the public interest to prosecute the matter in the first instance,” says Finch’s solicitor, Stephen Halloran. “Parliament really needs to look at changing the law if a jury has lost confidence in something that’s more than 50 years old.”
According to research compiled by the English Collective of Prostitutes, working indoors is ten times safer than on the streets. The group also believes that the legislation on brothel-keeping needs to be changed, claiming that an increasing number of raids are forcing more women to work alone. The murder of the prostitute Andrea Waddell, who was found burned and strangled in her Brighton flat, where she worked alone, is cited as evidence of the dangers posed to this vulnerable group.
Certainly it is hard to imagine a more sheltered and suburban setting than Chalton. Among the rows of large detached houses, the voluptuous Grecian statues in the driveway easily identify Finch’s home. Inside, a disco ball hangs above a thick cream carpet; scented candles and oils subtly mask the smell of four pampered cats. The centre of her business operations is a converted downstairs office, now complete with massage table, whirlpool and copious amounts of hand sanitiser. Finch took a percentage of the group’s earnings for providing advertising and the premises, but each woman could choose what she wanted to offer to clients and when. “We were a happy house of women,” she recalls. There was always a friend on hand to intervene if a situation became threatening and chat to if it was a slow work day. “We talked about cushions, children or menstrual cycles. I don’t have a bunch of Ukrainians strapped to things in the cellar.” 8)
etc...
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life ... 125757.ece